Opposition to rationalizing the gas tax is no longer limited to asphalt executives and the Davis-Bacon union bosses. The No on I-912 campaign just received a large charitable donation from a civic-minded coalition of gazillionaires (including Paul Allen) who have convinced themselves that the little people aren't paying enough taxes.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 19, 2005 09:29 AM | Email ThisThey tell us that these corporate interests are motivated by a committment to solving our transportation problems. Any one with a lick of common sense can see for themeselves that "transporation interests," have nothing to do with this issue. They openly admit that the gas tax money will not ease traffic congestion, but alas, no one can accuse liberals of having any common sense.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on October 19, 2005 09:44 AMSO LETS OPEN UP A BINGO HALL WITH THE PROFITS GOING TO I-900, I-901 & I-912. WE COULD SERVRE BEER & WINE, GET KEVIN PHELPS TO ISSIE US A HEALTH CARD... BUT WAIT... WE WOULD GET OUR BUTTS THROWN IN JAIL AND WOULD NOT BE OUT UNTIL THE 2020 MON-RAIL VOTE!
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on October 19, 2005 10:07 AMWhy can't these companies, and rich people, donate public works instead of to political campaigns?
If the time and money used, on both sides, were actually spent on solving our transportation problems, they'd be fixed by now!
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on October 19, 2005 10:12 AMSenate Transportation Committee Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, said the Legislature is unlikely to take up any plan to raise the gas tax next year if I-912 passes.
"I don't think the Legislature will do anything," Haugen said. "Particularly if it's a big win. People are really gun-shy because it is an election year."
What does it take to get through to these morons? They are already thinking how they can raise the gas tax even if the people say No, 1,000 times NO! The only reason they will not do it is because it is an election year - IN OTHER WORDS THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT IT, but they want it anyway. My goodness!
Posted by: fred on October 19, 2005 10:18 AMIf wasn't for them he would be working for free
and the State Gop debt while still large would
be even worse than it is.
I thought the gazillionaires wanted more taxes and were willing to pay for them- read the Hollywood types and their opposition to the death tax and tax cut proposals Bush put out there.
These folks will be paying almost nothing of these taxes. They can only be in one place at one time.
Let's see, the Rs, for most part, are for 912 for tax reasons. Rs are the party of the rich. 912 is being endorsed by the rich- is something wrong with this picture?
Posted by: baffles on October 19, 2005 10:34 AM
I think you will find that most of the county
parties in the state have endorsed I-912.
With the possible exeception of KING.Not
that it should surprise anyone.I mean the
county GOP's.
"These folks will be paying almost nothing of these taxes. They can only be in one place at one time."
True--so why are they for them, then? Perhaps because they will GAIN more in business than they will PAY in taxes? I guess a regressive tax is only bad for the little guy, after all.
And then his brain falls out as he gurgles through his Kool-Aid:
"Let's see, the Rs, for most part, are for 912 for tax reasons."
Possibly--or perhaps they are for 912 for democratic principles....oh, but wait! I thought only the democrats believed in those!
"Rs are the party of the rich."
BZZZZZT! Thank you for playing. I see you only know how to read from the Moron.org playbook. If you can't tell what is wrong with your statement, then you really need some help.
"912 is being endorsed by the rich- is something wrong with this picture?"
Umm...did you stop to ask which rich folks? Are you saying that there are NO rich democrats in Seattle. Gee...whoda thunkit?
Is it true that senators and congressmen-women don't pay into or receive social security benefits? That they have their own retirement plans? Do they really receive the same rate of pay after they retire?
I got an email, wondered if it was a hoax or not. People reading this ought to know, I hope.
If it's true, it's utterly outrageous!
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on October 19, 2005 11:32 AM4 billion is chump change to Gates and Allen.
Pardon the language.
Posted by: JCM on October 19, 2005 11:43 AMhttp://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcongress.htm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp
The problem is that we all know that those who are in charge of spending the state's money for transportation, don't put a value on eliminating the immediate problems with the greatest return on investment. It's just not politically correct to build lane miles, but that would by far and away have the greatest impact on improving transportation in the region. To be sure, there are some key projects on the books that do improve congestion, but they are not prioritized by their benefit to the region.
I cannot authorize my 5 cents per gallon to go to a place that may continue to fund Sound Transit or other lossy entities. Any responsible citizen will vote for I-912 because the first priority is to retrain the government spender towards a transportation philsophy that is not so anti-auto.
History has shown so many times that what's good for Allen is BAD for taxpayers.
Posted by: Andy on October 19, 2005 12:20 PMThe old stereotype of the Rs being the party of the rich is there. This endorsement shows that the stereotype is wrong.
And same goes for the Ds are for the "little guy". Yeah, right!!
Posted by: baffles on October 19, 2005 12:30 PMIf wasn't for them he would be working for free
and the State Gop debt while still large would
be even worse than it is.
Posted by phil spackman at October 19, 2005 10:18 AM"
Phil...
I'm pretty sure the state GOP (Which I have little use for) DID endorse I-912.
One wondersa if it would make any difference... and I'm no Vance fan, but this said they did endorse it.
http://www.komotv.com/news/mnewsaction.asp?ID=39475
Posted by: Terry on October 19, 2005 12:38 PMIt still amazes me that Gates is a Demo supporter, after Bill Clinton and Janet Reno tried to stick it up his tailport.
Allen is probably too busy sponsoring sodomite bingo and planning his next publicly-funded boondoggle to notice some loose change is missing.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 19, 2005 12:44 PMYet you condemn Allen's stance because of its effects on tax burdens? That smacks of hypocrisy.
"I guess a regressive tax is only bad for the little guy, after all."
A regressive tax only harms the wealthy only insofar as ANY tax hurts the wealthy (and all people, for that matter). An extraction of $500 billion from an economy hurts that economy, big and small alike. However, pulling that $500 billion from the poor rather than the wealthy hurts the poor more and the wealthy less than vice versa.
Posted by: Travis Thomas on October 19, 2005 04:14 PMBut only in Seattle could you find a multi-millionaire (Allen) that is also a recipient of some major public subsidy (football stadium), in favor of a big-time regressive tax.
What a POS.
Posted by: Shaun on October 19, 2005 05:17 PMDavis-Bacon is the prevailing wages for federal Jobs.
Washington Labor rates are called Prevailing Wages.
Very Similar, the state controls Prevailing Wages
Bill Serr .... 425/746-8612
Posted by Bill Serr at October 19, 2005 08:25 PM
Posted by: Bill Serr on October 19, 2005 08:27 PMDavis-Bacon is the prevailing wages for federal Jobs.
Washington Labor rates are called Prevailing Wages.
Very Similar, the state controls Prevailing Wages
Bill Serr .... 425/746-8612
Posted by Bill Serr at October 19, 2005 08:25 PM
Posted by: Bill Serr on October 19, 2005 08:27 PMThere is a conservative alternative to the GOP, Constitution Party
www.constitutionparty.com
Posted by: TedR on October 20, 2005 09:41 PM